Monterrico Metals lawsuit (re Peru)

In early 2009, eight Peruvians commenced legal proceedings in the English High Court against British mining company Monterrico Metals and its Peruvian subsidiary Rio Blanco Copper (previously known as Minera Majaz). The number of claimants has since increased. The claimants alleged that in July-August 2005, police detained 28 people protesting against a proposed development of the Rio Blanco Mine, sprayed noxious substances in their faces, hooded them, beat them with sticks and whipped them. Two of the female detainees alleged they were sexually assaulted and threatened with rape. The detainees claimed that the abuse and detention went on for three days and that they suffered serious injuries. The claimants sought damages for the alleged direct involvement of certain Monterrico and Rio Blanco personnel in the abuse (along with personnel from a private security company employed by Rio Blanco), alleged material support to the police, and the companies’ failure to prevent or react to the abuse. The companies deny any involvement in the alleged abuses.

On 2 June 2009, the claimants obtained a freezing injunction at the English High Court prohibiting Monterrico from disposing of assets to an extent that would leave it with less than £7.2 million in the UK. The company had indicated that, for commercial reasons, it planned to de-list from the FTSE Alternative Investment Market (AIM) index. This raised concerns that it might transfer assets out of the jurisdiction and thus prevent the claimants from collecting damages following any successful action. This freezing injunction was made permanent on 16 October 2009 for the sum of £5.015 million. On 20 July 2011, the company settled the case out of court by compensation payments and without admitting liability.

On 6 June 2008, Peru’s National Coordinator for Human Rights (CNDDHH) and the Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ) filed a criminal complaint against senior police officers responsible for the police response to the protest, police officers involved in the alleged abuse, and against Rio Blanco security and other personnel. The complaint alleges tat Rio Blanco’s security personnel were directly involved in the abuses. On 9 March 2009, the prosecutor cleared the mining company and their security personnel of wrongdoing, but allowed proceedings against the police to continue on the charges of torture. On 16 March 2009, FEDEPAZ appealed the prosecutor’s decision. On 2 April 2009, the appeal was accepted by the prosecutorial authority, which ordered further investigations, including the taking of statements from identified employees and a legal representative of Rio Blanco.

On 14 November 2012, the First Penal Appeal Court of Piura sentenced the former Joint Provincial Attorney of Huancabamba for omission charges. The former Attorney accepted charges and admitted to committing the offences contained in the proceedings. He acknowledged that a group of peasants was subject to torture at the mining field of Rio Blanco Copper SA, and that he deliberately omitted to disclose this to the competent judicial body.

In early 2009, eight Peruvians commenced legal proceedings in the English High Court against British mining company Monterrico Metals and its Peruvian subsidiary Rio Blanco Copper (previously known as Minera Majaz). The number of claimants has since increased. The claimants alleged that in July-August 2005, police detained 28 people protesting against a proposed development of the Rio Blanco Mine, sprayed noxious substances in their faces, hooded them, beat them with sticks and whipped them. Two of the female detainees allege they were sexually assaulted and threatened with rape. The detainees claim that the abuse and detention went on for three days and that they suffered serious injuries. The claimants seek damages for the alleged direct involvement of certain Monterrico and Rio Blanco personnel in the abuse (along with personnel from a private security company employed by Rio Blanco), alleged material support to the police, and the companies’ failure to prevent or react to the abuse. The companies deny any involvement in the alleged abuses.

On 2 June 2009, the claimants obtained a freezing injunction at the English High Court prohibiting Monterrico from disposing of assets to an extent that would leave it with less than £7.2 million in the UK. The company had indicated that, for commercial reasons, it planned to de-list from the FTSE Alternative Investment Market (AIM) index. This raised concerns that it might transfer assets out of the jurisdiction and thus prevent the claimants from collecting damages following any successful action. This freezing injunction was made permanent on 16 October 2009 for the sum of £5.015 million. On 20 July 2011, the company settled the case out of court by compensation payments and without admitting liability.

On 6 June 2008, Peru’s National Coordinator for Human Rights (CNDDHH) and the Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ) filed a criminal complaint against senior police officers responsible for the police response to the protest, police officers involved in the alleged abuse, and against Rio Blanco security and other personnel. The complaint alleges tat Rio Blanco’s security personnel were directly involved in the abuses. On 9 March 2009, the prosecutor cleared the mining company and their security personnel of wrongdoing, but allowed proceedings against the police to continue on the charges of torture. On 16 March 2009, FEDEPAZ appealed the prosecutor’s decision. On 2 April 2009, the appeal was accepted by the prosecutorial authority, which ordered further investigations, including the taking of statements from identified employees and a legal representative of Rio Blanco. [More details on the Peruvian proceedings will be forthcoming.]

[W]e urge the UK Government to live up to its commitment to ensure that victims of corporate human rights abuses perpetrated overseas are able to access justice in the UK courts…[I]t remains extremely difficult for court cases against multinationals to proceed in many of the countries where the alleged abuses occurred. It is therefore essential that such cases can be brought in the home states of the companies concerned…[G]overnments unanimously agreed to address this problem when they endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights…As home to some of the world’s largest multinationals, the UK ought to have led the way in delivering on this obligation. Instead, the Government went ahead with changes to the court costs regime, which means it is now far more difficult to bring such cases in this country…

The Access to Judicial Remedy (A2JR) Project set out to identify and analyze the barriers in the United States, Canada, and Europe…The detailed mapping exercise undertaken in the development of this Report shows that States are generally not fulfilling their obligation to ensure access to effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations by businesses operating outside their territory. Victims continue to face barriers that at times can completely block their access to an effective remedy…These barriers have been overcome in only some instances…Victims of human rights violations by business, wherever the violations occur, are entitled to full and effective access to judicial remedies. In order to provide this, each State should examine the barriers in their jurisdiction and consider the range of actions they can take to alleviate them, and in particular, the recommendations contained in this Report…[Refers to Alstom, Amesys (part of Bull), Anvil Mining (part of China Minmetals), Barrick Gold, Bull, Cambior, Cape PLC, Chevron, Chiquita, Daimler, DLH (Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman), Drummond, ExxonMobil, HudBay Minerals, Monterrico Metals (part of Zijin), Shell, Talisman, Texaco (part of Chevron), Thor Chemicals, Unocal (part of Chevron), Veolia Environnement (formerly Vivendi), Veolia Transport (part of Veolia Environnement), Walmart, Zijin]

This briefing highlights reports from a range of sources about how businesses have impacted human rights, positively and negatively, in Latin America & the Caribbean over the past two years. The briefing refers to most countries in Latin America. Amanda Romero, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre’s Latin America & the Caribbean Researcher based in Colombia and Julia Neiva, Brazil and Portuguese-speaking countries Researcher and Representative based in Brazil, provide our coverage of these countries. This is not a comprehensive overview. It flags some major issues, cases, developments and trends. For more details see our website, with sections on over 190 countries, more than 5000 companies, and 150 issues.

PBI UK organised the conference ‘A Dangerous Business: The human cost of advocating against environmental degradation and land rights violations’. Our idea was to analyse why violations continue to occur, and what can be done to address the gaps in policy, legislation, and enforcement to ensure that HRDs [human rights defenders] confronting human rights and environmental abuses receive better protection…PBI staged a public event targeted a wide variety of stakeholders ranging from civil society to government and business…The conference brought together human rights defenders from Mexico and Colombia, as well as experts from academia, non-governmental organisations, the mining industry, government and the legal profession to discuss and debate key issues of concern around the impact of large scale extractive, agribusiness and infrastructure projects on rural communities and those who advocate on their behalf. [refers to Anglo American, Monterrico Metals (part of Zijin), Vedanta, Xstrata]

Site tools

Follow us

Disclaimer: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and its collaborative partners take no position on the diverse views presented in linked material by the various commentators, organizations & companies. As with any database, we cannot guarantee the factual accuracy of all the articles & reports we make available.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.